A carbon budget can feel like a hard wall in modern building design, and once you treat CO2 as currency, everything starts competing for a slice of it. The problem is that fire safety systems often show up in those spreadsheets only as a penalty: extra embodied carbon for sprinklers, alarms, and protection. What gets ignored is the payoff. A serious fire can erase years of “sustainable” choices through demolition, replacement materials, repair labor, and lost building value, all with a very real carbon footprint.
We sit down with Swedish researchers Cecilia Wetterqvist (Lund University and Bengt Dahlgren Fire Research) and Axel Mossberg (Bengt Dahlgren Fire Research) to connect fire safety engineering with life cycle assessment (LCA), climate declarations, and green building certification thinking. We talk honestly about system boundaries, early design lock-in, why “50-year” assumptions can be misleading, and how reuse projects can be both a climate win and a detailing challenge that changes maintenance and risk.
The heart of the conversation is a translation tool: turning fire risk into the same unit sustainability teams already use, kilograms of CO2e per square meter. Using incident statistics and damage categories, the method estimates expected fire-related emissions, including the big driver most models miss: replacement. The result can flip decisions on their head, especially for larger commercial buildings where sprinklers may reduce expected lifecycle carbon rather than increase it.
If you are looking here for more resources, you know I got your back:
---- The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.
Podden och tillhörande omslagsbild på den här sidan tillhör
Wojciech Wegrzynski. Innehållet i podden är skapat av Wojciech Wegrzynski och inte av,
eller tillsammans med, Poddtoppen.
